I'm curious as to how you get there from here. As an example I present to you the nomination of John McCain, who was carried by a decent majority within the GOP.
McCain's nomination in the primary is a diverse thing.
For one, you had "The base" split between Romney, Huck, and Paul with some also leaning towards Rudy and McCain. However, for the most part, moderates seemed pretty set on McCain and Rudy, but Rudy was non-existant for the most part in this so you had McCain.
It canibalized itself, with in the end it falling essentially between McCain and Huck, with the social conservatives backing Huck and the rest going "oh god...I'm not sure about either of these" andp robably taking a chance McCain had a better shot at beating Obama or Hillary.
Why? So it can be different than the liberals? When you say this it sounds as though you are advocating for the duopoly of the political system in spite of what party members may actually want.
In a word, yes.
I'm advocating Duopoly because Monopoly of political ideas is bad. Its the same reason that I do NOT want moderates completely purged from the Republican party. You need the other side within any movement, or country, to keep things moderated a bit and to keep you continually re-examining things.
You've got the Dems, and lets call them Coke.
Then you have the Reps, and they have two choices to be...Diet Coke or Mountain Dew.
The voters are the consumers, and for the sake of things lets say the consumers key thing is taste. Most of those consumers may not mind Diet Coke, but why buy Diet Coke when you can buy real Coke and get the full taste instead of the watered down sweetner? Sure, a few people may prefer the taste of Diet Coke but most people that want Coke are going to go full out for the real thing.
With Mountain Dew you may very well find some people that go "Ugg, I don't like this at all" because its nothing like Coke at all. However, there's a better chance of getting a larger following than with Diet Coke because all those people that are going "I don't like Coke at all, but this seems interesting and I like it" are suddenly all gung ho for you.
I'm advocating that the Republican foundation must be solidly conservative because without it there will be no national conservative message and no national debate other than to be Left or More Left and I don't think that's good...no more than I would think Right or More Right would be a good thing.
Maybe the moderates are trying to purge the staunch conservatives. Ever think about that?
Perhaps they are. Actually, I think that's
EXACTLY what they're trying for....and I rebel against it, fight against it, and will happily try to remove those that are doing so because I think they are doing a detriment to the party, the ideology, and the country by doing so.
I as a voter want a national party that represents my ideals at least in a majority way. I want a conservative party that is actually viable on a national scene and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and just go "Well, some big talking heads in washington want to dictate to us little people whats 'really best for us' so I'll just shut up and move along". **** no. Let them try to purge the staunch conservatives. If the Republican party is going to be of any use to this country, to conservatives, and to the majority of its base in the next 5 to 10 years that purge needs to be faught against and fail or we're condemned to probably 15 to 20 years of unthinking, unchecked, and absolutely worthless years of Left or More Left.